SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:47:24 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Ok, so the string continues between the "artist" and the analysist.....
 
The biggest problem I have with analysis of another person's artistic work is
that very often others read meanings into a projest that simply aren't there.
I'm not saying that the reverse is also true, for there are times when
discussion of a director's use of a metaphor is called for and diserved. My
big problem is that after I shoot/edit/light something, there seems to be
someone else around who is telling ME what I meant by using a certain
technique. Film analysis is usually only effective when it is done regarding
the CONTENT of a film, ie: acting, story, direction, etc. Coming from a
technicial background, I rarely consern myself with these elements except
inasmuch as they require me to help bring about the director's vision. He
want's moody, I make moody, he wants evil, I make evil, etc, ad nauseum.
There are unlimited ways to shoot/light/edit a particular sequence of shots
that make up a film, but I think I can safely say that a particular scene was
shot & lit a certain way because it LOOKED GOOD THAT WAY. Personally, I feel
that once the DP & Director have decided on how the film should look in order
to tell the story, many decisions are made out of necisity or convience. You
want evil, light from the ground with lotsa shadows and shoot creepy
close-ups, you want frantic? shoot hand-held....
 
I know I'm kinda making your point for you here, yes there is a reason for
everything that is done, and it usually falls back on being the best way to
tell the story in a visually pleasing way. Again tho, my beef is that OVER
analysis is counter productive and does litte more than get Technogeeks like
me pissed at acedemics like you :)...makes one wonder about that old saying
about those that can do, and those that can't ...teach ;) (snicker, snicker)
Too much of a good thing can be bad sometimes, and too much of a bad thing
always sucks. Sometimes with art, you gotta just stand back and say "hey,
that's really cool" you don't HAVE to know why....can't it just be good?
Remember, one man's art......
 
Now tell me again what Picasso couldn't paint a face that even closely
resembled one that existed in reality?....

ATOM RSS1 RSS2